Has immigration had an overall positive or negative effect on Britain?

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But almost all of them are ok. And it's not insurance if you're not covered in the first 5 years.

explain that to VHI for their waiting period, perhaps 5 years could be flexible, but the idea that somebody could land in the UK on monday and be receiving heart surgery on the NHS for free on the friday without contributing anything is madness.

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Is that report calming that EU migrants had a net of £5billion over 17 years? Also what services that the immigrants access has been included in the calculation? Housing demand? NHS? schooling and child benefits etc also I am pretty sure the immigrants send a lot of cash "home" would this have been figured? Also, if they are displacing the host population working class causing them to remain unemployed is that really being a net+?

If it's a net figure then that will have been calculated.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

explain that to VHI for their waiting period, perhaps 5 years could be flexible, but the idea that somebody could land in the UK on monday and be receiving heart surgery on the NHS for free on the friday without contributing anything is madness.

How often does that scenario arise?

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How often does that scenario arise?

enough to cost between £70-£300 million a year. (daily mail say £2 billion but ill do us both a favour and not link that story)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/22/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bn

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

enough to cost between £70-£300 million a year. (daily mail say £2 billion but ill do us both a favour and not link that story)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/22/health-tourists-costing-nhs-2bn

You're conflating Health tourists with immigrants.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If it's a net figure then that will have been calculated.

I dont believe that, have you a link to the study?

ancapailldorcha

I do. Anyway, you can google it.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're conflating Health tourists with immigrants.

those are both immigration problems.

ancapailldorcha

No, they're not.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I certainly would't say that families never come over as well. If the spouse moves over as well then they're very likely to work and contribute also. A lot of migrants settle, marry a national and start a family.

Both family members of the household working would not be a clear majority (if a majority at all) in the case of migrant workers I think; even qualified ones. Saying this from my own experience in an IT multinational company: most non EU colleagues are from India and Russia (due to the fact the the company has been outsourcing in these countries and has now hired many of the best ex-contractors as full time employees here). All brought in wife and kids and none of their wives are working.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

Both family members of the household working would not be a clear majority (if a majority at all) in the case of migrant workers I think; even qualified ones. Saying this from my own experience in an IT multinational company: most non EU colleagues are from India and Russia (due to the fact the the company has been outsourcing in these countries and hired in many of the best ex-contractors as full time employees here). All brought in wife and kids and none of their wives are working.

That's not data, that's anecdotal. I know plenty of people who came to the UK either alone or with a partner with both working.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's not data, that's anecdotal. I know plenty of people who came to the UK either alone or with a partner with both working.

Sure but I don't see data from you either. And the only numbers posted on this thread are saying non-EU migrants have a net negative financial impact so are pointing towards the same direction as what I have been observing.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's not data, that's anecdotal. I know plenty of people who came to the UK either alone or with a partner with both working.

both are anecdotal. We simply don't have the figures on this , there is no study that can categorically say "out of all the immigrants that came to the UK in the last 30 years they contributed x amount and cost us x amount" the data may be there in future, but we don't have a large enough calculable sample.

ancapailldorcha

I don't see why I should be the only one to present data given that 1, noone else has and 2, it'll be ignored akin to the other "Pin the blame on the immigrants" threads.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

both are anecdotal. We simply don't have the figures on this , there is no study that can categorically say "out of all the immigrants that came to the UK in the last 30 years they contributed x amount and cost us x amount" the data may be there in future, but we don't have a large enough calculable sample.

So why assume that they are then? Why should someone have to work for 10 years to be entitled to NHS care when someone who was born in the UK can sit on the dole for their entire life and get all sorts at the drop of a hat?

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see why I should be the only one to present data given that 1, noone else has and 2, it'll be ignored akin to the other "Pin the blame on the immigrants" threads.

You are not providing data, a link to a very left leaning paper?!?! Why do you not want to give me a link to that study?

ancapailldorcha

Very left leaning? I'd call it centre-left and that's me being generous. Why wouldn't I want you to provide data? What's your point?

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see why I should be the only one to present data given that 1, noone else has and 2, it'll be ignored akin to the other "Pin the blame on the immigrants" threads.

"MigrationWatch estimates suggest that the net fiscal impact of migrants is negative (the estimates are GBP -1 billion for 1999-2000 and GBP -5 billion for 2003-2004). MigrationWatch also presents estimates allocating all children of mixed couples to the migrant group and, as expected, the fiscal burden of migrants is estimated to be much higher (around GBP -3.8 billion in 1999-2000)."

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/briefing%20-%20Fiscal%20Impacts.pdf

study from oxford which is a collection of studies about migration, some are negative, some are positive , but even the best study suggests migrants contributed a positive 2.5 billion to the economy in 99-00

migration watch suggests that in 2003-2004 migrants cost the UK 5 billion.

overall the positives are minuscule , but this doesn't take into account the effects of population growth, increasing inflation and pushing up prices for housing and services which is a net negative for natives.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So why assume that they are then? Why should someone have to work for 10 years to be entitled to NHS care when someone who was born in the UK can sit on the dole for their entire life and get all sorts at the drop of a hat?

As you've seen from previous threads, I also want to stamp that out.

ancapailldorcha

Migration Watch is a right-wing think tank which has been accused of racism so I'll be ignoring that.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Migration Watch is a right-wing think tank which has been accused of racism so I'll be ignoring that.

ofcourse, "facts i disagree with aren't valid"

it explains their calculation method, and tore it apart, oxford saw fit to include them in the compiled study.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

ofcourse, "facts i disagree with aren't valid"

it explains their calculation method, and tore it apart, oxford saw fit to include them in the compiled study.

You utilised the same logic in another thread.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You utilised the same logic in another thread.

can i have a link to that please.

also even leaving that out, the positives are not big enough to overlook the secondary negatives.

Bob24

Here's some data.

As mentioned before, migrant's participation is the market is lower (it greatly depends on the origin and sex but is always lower than the equivalent UK category).

And also as I mentioned it can be seen that for some origins wives are definitely present and staying at home much more than average (see Pakistan and Bangladesh).



Source: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/16488/1/16488.pdf

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

can i have a link to that please.

also even leaving that out, the positives are not big enough to overlook the secondary negatives.

You didn't. I apologise. I confused you with another user.

If the positives aren't big enough, why does every major party support immigration?

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

Here's some data.

As mentioned before, migrant's participation is the market is lower (it greatly depends on the origin and sex but is always lower than the equivalent UK category).

And also as I mentioned it can be seen that for some origins wives are definitely present and staying at home much more than average (see Pakistan and Bangladesh).

Source: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/16488/1/16488.pdf

The one regarding women might be a bit unfair given that they came from patriarchal countries where few women worked. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be much difference in the men and it's not always lower for foreigners.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I do. Anyway, you can google it.

Ok, i googled it, now I am only on page 4, but it seems they have worked out it a net of 5 billion over 17 years which is pretty insignificant, but they definitely do not factor in money sent back "home" which would dwarf that 5billion but also ridiculously they include a value for the education they received in their home country treating it as a valuable asset they bring with them completely skewing the figures, i suppose they had to do something to reach the conclusion they needed.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You didn't. I apologise. I confused you with another user.

If the positives aren't big enough, why does every major party support immigration?

good PR (anyone against it gets branded a racist automatically)
more voters, of course they'll vote for who let them in
they only think about the tax take in the short term, not the long term spend.

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Ok, i googled it, now I am only on page 4, but it seems they have worked out it a net of 5 billion over 17 years which is pretty insignificant, but they definitely do not factor in money sent back "home" which would dwarf that 5billion but also ridiculously they include a value for the education they received in their home country treating it as a valuable asset they bring with them completely skewing the figures, i suppose they had to do something to reach the conclusion they needed.

I don't believe that. You can't find your hypothesis in your data. That sort of nonsense might fly at a so-called "think tank" but not with world leading institutions such as UCL.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

good PR (anyone against it gets branded a racist automatically)
more voters, of course they'll vote for who let them in
they only think about the tax take in the short term, not the long term spend.

It's a philosophy which attracts racists though. A lot of them. Only Irish and UK citizens can vote in UK elections by the way and they have to be living in the UK.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't believe that. You can't find your hypothesis in your data. That sort of nonsense might fly at a so-called "think tank" but not with world leading institutions such as UCL.

I dont understand?

ancapailldorcha

Look at it another way, UCL are a world leading institution whose staff likely couldn't care less one way or anther.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a philosophy which attracts racists though. A lot of them. Only Irish and UK citizens can vote in UK elections by the way and they have to be living in the UK.

I don't doubt that, we all know thats true, but its just so automatic, the second a politician says "lets talk about immigration" the anti fascist league are outside the door shouting "nazi scum" at them .

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The one regarding women might be a bit unfair given that they came from patriarchal countries where few women worked.

So because there is an explanation for their lack of engagement in the workforce, its impact on the UK should be ignored?

Strange way to look at statistics.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Anyway, there doesn't seem to be much difference in the men and it's not always lower for foreigners.

I'll just agree that for you there is no clear difference and for me the there is one - and let other people judge based on the numbers.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

So because there is an explanation for their lack of engagement in the workforce, its impact on the UK should be ignored?

Strange way to look at statistics.

I never said that. I was just offering my opinion.

Bob24 wrote: »

I'll just agree that for you there is no clear difference and for me the there is one - and let other people judge based on the numbers.

I said that it's not huge, not that it's not noticeable.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Look at it another way, UCL are a world leading institution whose staff likely couldn't care less one way or anther.

Your not very good at this debating lark, are you? Anyway this is the part where they place a Value on the education the migrant brings that takes the final calculation from - to net +.

"Immigrants also provide savings to the taxpayer by bringing with them educational
qualifications paid for by their countries of origin. Calculating the annuities for
immigrants’ effective education (i.e. the level of education corresponding to the
educational requirement for their occupation), we find that between 1995 and 2011
European immigrants endowed the UK labour market with human capital that would
have cost £14 billion if it were produced through the British education system.
Likewise, over the same period, the annuities of non-European immigrants’ education
amounted to an implicit savings of more than £35 billion. Focusing on those
immigrants who arrived between 2001 and 2011, such implicit savings to the UK
taxpayers total about £18 billion."

Inquitus

EU Immigration is an overwhelming net positive contribution to the UK economy.

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Your not very good at this debating lark, are you? Anyway this is the part where they place a Value on the education the migrant brings that takes the final calculation from - to net +.

So, you're ignoring a contribution and then having a pop at me? And I'm not good at debating?

MathDebater

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Only Irish and UK citizens can vote in UK elections by the way and they have to be living in the UK.

Certain qualifying commonwealth citizens resident in the UK can vote too. Canadians, Indians, Australians etc. Around a million commonwealth citizens were eligible to vote yesterday.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election

ancapailldorcha

MathDebater wrote: »

Certain qualifying commonwealth citizens resident in the UK can vote too. Canadians, Indians, Australians etc.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election

Didn't know that.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So, you're ignoring a contribution and then having a pop at me? And I'm not good at debating?

Ignoring what contribution? So far that study has not included negative effects of displacing host population workers, wage deflation or money sent back to migrants home country but has placed a massive value on the education the migrant has brought to do mostly min wage unskilled labour! And I am on page 4 of 55. Now I am wondering how they appraised the Value of the migrants education? Do they Base it on average cost of first and second level UK wide or private schooling in a region.

Hang on, are you the guy that was recently arguing with me that every migrant man, woman and child contributed £70,000 per year to the exchequer?

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Ignoring what contribution? So far that study has not included negative effects of displacing host population workers, wage deflation or money sent back to migrants home country but has placed a massive value on the education the migrant has brought to do mostly min wage unskilled labour! And I am on page 4 of 55. Now I am wondering how they appraised the Value of the migrants education? Do they Base it on average cost of first and second level UK wide or private schooling in a region.

Hang on, are you the guy that was recently arguing with me that every migrant man, woman and child contributed £70,000 per year to the exchequer?

If someone works, they should be free to send it wherever they choose. How do you know anyone's been "displaced" exactly? Source?

If you're referring to the UCL study which found that net migration of 300,000 per year into the UK added £20 billion to the economy, then yes. I remember you opted to insult me rather than engage in debate.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If someone works, they should be free to send it wherever they choose. How do you know anyone's been "displaced" exactly? Source?

If you're referring to the UCL study which found that net migration of 300,000 per year into the UK added £20 billion to the economy, then yes. I remember you opted to insult me rather than engage in debate.

Of course they should be free to send it home, that was not my point, my point is that the fact they send it home should be included in any calculations trying to figure if migrants have a positive or negative on the economy.

Also if you truly believe that every migrant man, woman and child contribute £70,000 pound sterling to the UK exchequer then I am done even talking to you, that would be the most ridiculous argument the pro immagrant side has ever uttered and you would be an embarrassment to critical thought.

fryup

For Reals wrote: »

The descendants of German immigrants, such as the Queen, have done very well indeed, and do bring in tourist coin. Her Greek husband seems to do well too.

and not to mention the Paddys

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Of course they should be free to send it home, that was not my point, my point is that the fact they send it home should be included in any calculations trying to figure if migrants have a positive or negative on the economy.

Also if you truly believe that every migrant man, woman and child contribute £70,000 pound sterling to the UK exchequer then I am done even talking to you, that would be the most ridiculous argument the pro immagrant side has ever uttered and you would be an embarrassment to critical thought.

Do I really need to explain this to you? Actually, no. I'm done. It should be obvious but never mind.

MathDebater

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If someone works, they should be free to send it wherever they choose. How do you know anyone's been "displaced" exactly? Source?

If you're referring to the UCL study which found that net migration of 300,000 per year into the UK added £20 billion to the economy, then yes. I remember you opted to insult me rather than engage in debate.

The study found no such thing.

Immigrants from Poland and the other nine countries that joined the EU in 2004 have contributed almost £5 billion more to the UK’s economy than they used in benefits and public services.

Analysis by the University College London Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that while the fiscal contribution by European workers was overwhelmingly positive – amounting to £20 billion in a decade – the same was not true for non-EEA arrivals.

Between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from outside the EU made a negative contribution of £118 billion over 17 years, the report found, using more publicly-funded services, including the NHS, education and benefits, than they paid in tax.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-noneu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html

Do the maths. Overall, immigration has been a drain on the British exchequer.


It must also be remembered that the co-author of the report, a Mr Christian Dustmann, is extremely pro immigration and previously concluded that between 5k-13k accession state nationals would come to the UK each year. It later transpired that more than one million citizens from the accession states arrived between 2004 and the end of 2009 – an average of around 200,000 a year. In this report, he completely ignored the physical pressure migrants place on schools, hospitals and roads etc.

British immigration minister James Brokenshire on Dustmanns report:

It ignores issues that matter to hardworking people, the impact on schools, on hospitals, on roads, on housing. It tells us nothing about how uncontrolled, mass immigration can make it harder to maintain social cohesion.The report takes no account of the future costs associated with those who stay, grow old and make greater demands on our public services.’

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Do I really need to explain this to you? Actually, no. I'm done. It should be obvious but never mind.

Ahh, Your doing that now, as I said, your not very good at this debating lark, are you?

ancapailldorcha

The UCL study is solely based on EU immigrants. I wouldn't mind seeing a breakdown of the section dealing with non-EU migrants being a drain. I suspect a lot of that might be down to illegal immigrants being exploited as cheap labour.

Also, what's your basis for saying Mr. Dustmann is extremely pro-immigrant?

Why do people keep saying that there is uncontrolled immigration to the UK? Of course there are controls?

Bob24

MathDebater wrote: »

British immigration minister James Brokenshire on Dustmanns report:

It ignores issues that matter to hardworking people, the impact on schools, on hospitals, on roads, on housing. It tells us nothing about how uncontrolled, mass immigration can make it harder to maintain social cohesion.The report takes no account of the future costs associated with those who stay, grow old and make greater demands on our public services.’

Exactly - the debate is ofter focusing on the immediate financial benefit or deficit, but really if you are allowing immigrants to settle what matters is the medium to long term economic and social impact on the country, which is much more difficult to estimate.

Lt J.R. Bell

gallag wrote: »

16 hours selling the big issue is enough to qualify for in work benefits in the UK.

Good question.

Would they have an employee? Under their direction? How are they paid? or are they self employed?

Possibly, yes, still enough to qualify as a worker, provided, they are classed as an "employee",

That might be enough to be classed as a worker.

The hours wouldn't be my concern, it would be whether they are, legally, an employee. Don't these lads get commission? Or they answerable to anyone?